* Il est difficile de trouver la citation exacte dans les médias et même sur internet, ce prétendu noyau de résistance de la vérité. Des parties sont censurées, ce sont les plus significatives. Ce sont celles qui nous disent quoi faire pour que toutes ces horreurs cessent enfin. L'homme aurait dit en substance (traduction fr.): «Je suis désolé que des femmes soient témoins
de ça, mais dans notre pays, les femmes voient les mêmes choses. Vous ne
serez jamais en sécurité. Virez votre gouvernement, il se fout de
vous.Nous devons les combattre comme ils nous combattent. Œil pour œil,
dent pour dent. Nous jurons par Allah le tout puissant que nous
n'arrêterons jamais de vous combattre » (V.O.A.: "The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are
dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one … By
Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you
until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Sharia in
Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and
call us extremists and kill us? … when you drop a bomb do you think it
hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? … Through
[many passages in the] Koran we must fight them as they fight us … I
apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women
have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your
governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is gonna
get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think
politicians are going to die? No, it's going to be the average guy, like
you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our
troops back … leave our lands and you will live in peace.""). Notez, de plus, que dans cette histoire c'est un militaire qui a été tué, alors que dans ces pays où nous intervenons sans cesse, nous tuons par milliers des femmes et des enfants et autres civils innocents!

Blowback is unintended consequences of a covert operation
that are suffered by the aggressor. To the civilians suffering the
blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as
“random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause;
because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are unaware of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1]

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état, published in March 1954.[2][3]

The dominant reactions to the
horrific bombings on April 15th, the day of the running of the Boston
Marathon, as well as the celebration of Patriots Day, have been so far:
compassion for the victims, a maximal resolve to track down the
perpetrators, a pundit’s notebook that generally agrees that Americans
have been protected against terrorist violence since 9/11 and that the
best way to prevail against such sinister adversaries is to restore
normalcy as quickly as possible. In this spirit, it is best to avoid
dwelling on the gory details by darkly glamorizing the scene of mayhem
with flowers and homage. It is better to move forward with calm resolve
and a re-commitment to the revolutionary ideals that midwifed the birth
of the American nation. Such responses are generally benevolent,
especially when compared to the holy war fevers espoused by national
leaders, the media, and a vengeful public after the 9/11 attacks that
also embraced Islamophobic falsehoods. Maybe America has become more
poised in relation to such extremist incidents, but maybe not. It is
soon to tell, and the somewhat hysterical Boston dragnet for the
remaining at large and alive suspect does suggest that the wounds of
9/11 are far from healed.

For one thing, the scale and drama of
the Boston attack, while great, was not nearly as large or as
symbolically resonant as the destruction of the World Trade Center and
the shattering of the Pentagon. Also, although each life is sacred, the
magnitude of tragedy is somewhat conveyed by numbers, and the Marathon
incident has so far produced three deaths as compared to three thousand,
that is, 1/1000th of 9/11. Also important, the neocon presidency of
George W. Bush was in 2001, prior to the attacks, openly seeking a
pretext to launch a regime-changing war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,
and the 9/11 events, as interpreted and spun, provided just the
supportive domestic climate needed for launching an aggressive war
against the Baghdad regime. The Iraq War was undertaken despite the UN
Security Council failure to lend its authority to such an American
deadly geopolitical venture and in the face of the largest anti-war
global demonstrations in human history. In 2001, the preferred American
grand strategy, as blueprinted by the ideologues of the American
Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution, was given a green light
by the Bush/Cheney White House even in the face of the red lights
posted both at the UN and in the streets of 600 or more cities around
the world.

Although there are many distressing
continuities that emerge if the Obama presidency is appraised by
comparison with the counter-terrorist agenda of his predecessors, there
are also some key differences of situation and approach. Obama came to
Washington as outspoken opponent of torture and of the Iraq War. He also
arrived after the failed wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, which had
devastated two countries, seemingly beyond foreseeable recovery, while
adding nothing to American security, however measured. These unlawful
wars wasted trillions expended over the several years during which many
Americans were enduring the hardships and pain of the deepest economic
recession since the 1930s. In other words, temporarily at least, the
Beltway think tanks and the government are doing their best to manage
global crises without embarking on further wars in a spirit of
geopolitical intoxication that was hallmark of the unipolar moment that
was invoked by Republicans to chide the Clinton presidency for its
wimpish failure to pursue American strategic interests in the Middle
East. Remember, as well, that this was the period of quick victorious
wars that were also cheap when measured by casualties or resources. The
Gulf War of 1991 and the NATO Kosovo War of 1999 were the poster
children of this supposed revolution in warfare that enabled the United
States and its allies to fight ‘zero casualty wars.’ At least it seems
that for the present irresponsible and unlawful warfare are no longer
the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy, as had become the case in
the first decade of the 21st century, although this is far from a
certainty. The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both
North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of
the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and
justice in the world should not rest easy.

Aside from the dangers and
unacceptability of promiscuous wars, there are other serious
deficiencies in how the United States sees itself in the world. We
should be worried by the taboo at this moment of 24/7
self-congratulatory commentary imposed on any type of self-scrutiny by
either the political leadership or the mainstream media. Unlike the
aftermath of 9/11, there are a few hopeful signs of awakening to this
one-eyed vision on the part of the citizenry. Listening to a PBS program
hours after the Boston event, I was struck by the critical attitudes of
several callers to the radio station: “It is horrible, but we in this
country should not be too surprised, given our drone attacks that have
killed women and children attending weddings and funerals in Afghanistan
and Pakistan.” Another caller asked, “Is this not a kind of retribution
for torture inflicted by American security forces acting under the
authority of the government, and verified for the world by pictures of
the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib?” And another asked,
“In light of the authoritative reports of officially sanctioned torture
as detailed in the 577 page report of a task force chaired by two former
senators, one a Republican, the other a Democrat, and containing senior
military and security officials, has not the time come to apply the law
to the wrongdoers during the Bush presidency?” Can we not expect one
among our politicians, other than the Tea Party darling Rand Paul, to
have the courage to connect some of these dots? Should we not all be
meditating on W.H. Auden’s haunting line: “Those to whom evil is done/do
evil in return”?

TheAmerican global domination project
is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.
In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to
experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if
there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world,
starting with the Middle East. Some of us naively hoped that Obama’s
Cairo speech of 2009 was to be the beginning of such a process of
renewal, and although timid in many ways, it was yet possessed of a
tonality candidly acknowledged that relations with the Islamic world
needed fundamental moves by the US Government for the sake of
reconciliation, including the adoption of a far more balanced approach
to the Palestine/Israel impasse. But as the months passed, what became
evident, especially given the strong pushback by Israel and its
belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu, were a series of disappointing
reactions by Obama, which could be described as an accelerating
backpedaling in relation to opening political space in the Middle East.

Now at the start of his second
presidential term, it seems that Obama has given up altogether,
succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel First. Obama has acknowledged
the constraints on his freedom to maneuver on these foreign policy
issues, and seeks to confine his legacy ambitions to such domestic
concerns as immigration, gun control, and health care. In so doing, he
is virtually abandoning the international agenda except to manage crisis
diplomacy in ways that do not disturb the global status quo or weaken
America’s global reach. Obama’s March trip to Israel was highlighted by
his March 21st speech in Jerusalem, which was delivered as a love letter
to the Israeli public rather than qualifying as a good faith effort to
demonstrate his belief in a just peace. Such obsequious diplomacy was a
disappointment even to those of us with low expectations in what the
White House is willing to overcome the prolonged ordeal of the
Palestinian people.

Aside from the tensions of the moment,
self-scrutiny and mid-course reflections on America’s global role is
long overdue. Such a process is crucial both for the sake of the
country’s own future security and also in consideration of the wellbeing
of others. Such adjustments will eventually come about either as a
result of a voluntary process of self-reflection or through the force of
unpleasant events. How and when this process of reassessment occurs
remains a mystery. Until it does, America’s military prowess and the
abiding confidence of its leaders in hard power diplomacy makes the
United States a menace to the world and to itself. Such an observation
is as true if the more avowedly belligerent Mitt Romney rather than the
seemingly dovish Barack Obama was in the White House. Such bipartisan
support for maintaining the globe-girdling geopolitics runs deep in the
body politic, and is accompanied by the refusal to admit the evidence of
national decline. The signature irony is that the more American decline
is met by a politics of denial, the more rapid and steep will be the
decline, and the more abrupt and risky will be the necessary shrinking
of the global leadership role so long played by the United States. We
should be asking ourselves at this moment, “How many canaries will have
to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global
domination?”

One
of America’s most outspoken academics is under fire again, once more
accused of “anti-Semitism”—even though he’s Jewish—and charged with
being “anti-American.” Dr. Richard Falk’s latest crime is having
suggested the Boston Marathon incident was a result of the misconduct of
U.S. foreign policy.

The late Chalmers Johnson, another harsh critic
of American global adventurism—often referred to as the New World
Order—famously described such unpleasant consequences as “blowback.”
Falk sees a great deal of blowback ahead unless drastic changes are
soonmade in the direction of U.S. policy.

Earlier, Falk upset many by
writing the foreword to the hotly controversial book by Dr. David Ray
Griffin—The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush
Administration and 9-11—which raised serious questions about the U.S.
government’s version of 9-11.

Addressing the government contention
that the Boston bombing was the work of two young Muslims dissatisfied
with American policy, Falk took a broad-ranging view of U.S. global
relations and predicted a bleak future if things continue on the course
they have during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama

.

One Jewish academician is under fire for suggesting that America’s foreign policy results in more terrorism.

Writing
in Foreign Policy Journal on April 21, Falk slammed what he called “the
American global domination project”—and concluded it is “bound to
generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.” In fact,
he said, “in some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to
experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if
there is no disposition to rethink U.S. relations to others in the
world, starting with the Middle East.”

Falk summarized the
consequences of what he referred to as “the failed wars” in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Not only did those wars devastate those countries, while
adding nothing to American security, but, he pointed out, “these
unlawful wars wasted trillions expended over the several years during
which many Americans were enduring the hardships and pain of the deepest
economic recession since the 1930s.”

Republicans—typically—are up in
arms over Falk’s assessment, demanding Falk be ousted from his UN post,
but the no-nonsense professor has not spared Obama from criticism
either.

Referring to what he calls Obama’s “obsequious diplomacy” and
“backpedaling” in dealing with Israel, Falk said that although some at
first saw signs Obama might be moving to put a brake on Israel, “it
seems that Obama has given up altogether, succumbing to the Beltway
ethos of ‘Israel first’.”

While Obama and the American foreign policy
elite initially appeared to be moving away from “irresponsible and
unlawful warfare” as “the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy”—the
hallmark of the George W. Bush era—this is unfortunately, in Falk’s
estimation, “far from a certainty.”

Right now, noted Falk, “the war
drums are beating . . . in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as
long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political
establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should
not rest easy.”

Noting that “bipartisan support for maintaining the
globe-girdling geopolitics runs deep in the body politic, and is
accompanied by the refusal to admit the evidence of national decline,”
Falk contended that “the signature irony is that the more America’s
decline is met by a politics of denial, the more rapid and steep will be
the decline, and the more abrupt and risky will be the necessary
shrinking of the global leadership role so long played by the United
States.”

Despite media and government elites continuing to defend
American globalism, Falk sees some signs that grassroots Americans are
waking up to the dangers and are beginning a “long-overdue” reflection
on America’s role in the world.

——

Michael Collins Piper is an
author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in
Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the
author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War,
Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share
the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can
order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free
at 1-888-699-6397.

I've been plowing through Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy. IMHO, this is where you should go to learn "why they hate us".

Here's Johnson's summary of the first volume, "Blowback".

"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the
world. The concept "Blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things
our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to
retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out
abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This
means that when the retaliation comes – as it did so spectacularly on
September 11, 2001 – the American public is unable to put the events in
context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the
perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another
cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the
historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation
confront today, although I focused more on Asia – the area of my
academic training – than on the Middle East."

And the second book, "Sorrows Of Empire":

"The Sorrows of Empire was written during the American
preparations for and launching of the invasions and occupations
of Afghanistan and Iraq. I began to study our continuous military
buildup since World War II and the 737 military bases we
currently maintain in other people's countries. This empire of bases is
the concrete manifestation of our global hegemony and many of the
blowback-inducing wars we have conducted had as their true purpose the
sustaining and expanding of this network. We do not think of these
overseas deployments as a form of empire; in fact, most Americans do not
give them any thought at all until something truly shocking, such as
the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay brings them to our
attention. But the people living next door to these bases and dealing
with the swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape their women
certainly think of them as imperial enclaves, just as the people of
ancient Iberia or nineteenth-century India knew that they were victims
of foreign colonization."

And finally, "Nemesis":

“In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political,
economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is
likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire
abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut
our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or
its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this
well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would
prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing
armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and
ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in
favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our
democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started
down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play –
isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism,
and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation.”

Not everyone is a total geek like me. Not everyone is willing to plow
through three fairly technical and occasionally repetitive books about
our disastrous foreign policy decisions, just to hold an informed
opinion.

So as a public service, here's all you need to know about "Blowback",
what causes it , and how we're perceived elsewhere in the world.

For further info, you can still check out Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy".

Unswerving American support for
Israel remains one of the biggest causes of Islamist terrorism, and
nothing has changed in this regard since the attacks of September 11,
2001, Harvard Professor Stephan Walt has said.

Writing on his Foreign Policy website, professor Walt, famous for co-authoring the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,
said that both the “Bush and Obama administrations have given Israel
everything it has wanted (except a green light to attack Iran), and U.S.
politicians continue to bend over backward to express their deep
devotion to the Jewish state.

“The United States gave Israel
diplomatic cover during the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2008-2009 Gaza War,
and also following the attack on the Mavi Marmara in 2010.

“Obama caved completely on the issue of a
settlement freeze, and the U.S. Congress continues to vote a generous
aid package every year and demean itself with various AIPAC-drafted
resolutions.

“Heck, if I were a jihadist trying to
convince a recruit that the United States had no sincere commitment to
human rights and no respect for Arab or Muslim lives, I’d just show them
a transcript of Chuck Hagel or Samantha Power’s confirmation hearings
and leave it at that.”

Professor Walt’s article pointed out
that Osama Bin Laden and the Islamists who carry out terrorist attacks
against Americans do so out of a threefold motivation:

“First, he [Bin Laden] accused the West —
and especially the United States — of constant and hostile interference
in the Islamic world. This charge included the U.S. sanctions against
Iraq during the 1990s (which caused thousands of Iraqi deaths) and the
West’s alleged exploitation of Mideast oil.

“Second, he accused the United States of
propping up corrupt and illegitimate dictatorships in places like Egypt
and Saudi Arabia, and he specifically cited the stationing of thousands
of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia following the 1991 Gulf War.

“Third, he blamed the United States for
giving lavish, unconditional support to Israel and for turning a blind
eye to Israel’s harsh treatment of its Palestinian subjects.”

“The question is: Has U.S. behavior since then made such charges look more credible or less credible?

“Has the United States undertaken
actions designed to show that bin Laden’s charges were basically bogus,
or has it behaved in ways that make them appear to be largely correct?”

His conclusion is that the “United
States has been fighting a completely one-sided campaign against al
Qaeda and the group’s cousins.

“It has hardened its own society
(excessively) and taken the battle to those suspected of being hostile
to it (probably excessively too).

“But the United States has done hardly
anything to counter the narratives that anti-American forces use to
rally support, and it has done plenty to reinforce them.

“And a lot of the things the United
States has done — such as invading Iraq or giving
Israel unconditional support — are bad for the United States.”

The Times of Israel - Ex-US general: We pay a price for backing Israel Retired US Marine Corps General James Mattis recently said that
America pays a price for its perceived bias in support of Israel. “I
paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom
because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and that
moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they
can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for
the Arab Palestinians,” he said Saturday at the Aspen Security Forum in
Colorado in response to a question about the peace process.

“US Support for Israel” Harms America, Says Top US Military Commander Continued American support for Israel
harms the US throughout the Middle East, according to the most senior
military commander in that region, Marine Corps General James Mattis. Speaking at the prestigious Aspen Security Forum
in Colorado late in July, General Mattis, who retired May 22 as chief
of the U.S. Central Command, in charge of U.S. forces in the Middle
East, said that America needs to work “with a sense of urgency” to
achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
because resentment of U.S. support for Israel hurts America militarily
throughout the region.

This show was broadcast on January 28, 2014. It is now archived here for everyone — Use Player Coming Up Tuesday, January 28th — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday at 8am Pacific * 11am Eastern * 15:00 GMTSubscribers to TruthJihad.com get early access to all show archives here. Everyone else gets access to the show archives the day of the broadcast here. EXCLUSIVE BROADCAST:
CIA Bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer: WHO “hates our freedoms” ?! Somebody around here hates our freedoms – but it isn’t al-Qaeda! That is the considered opinion of Dr. Michael Scheuer,
a 20-year CIA veteran who headed the “get Osama Bin Laden” unit from
1996 through 1999. During his tenure at the CIA’s Bin Laden unit,
Scheuer had no fewer than ten opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden
that got nixed by higher-ups.
The impression that the high command didn’t want to stop Bin Laden
continued post-9/11, as the US seemingly went out of its way to let Bin
Laden and his associates escape, first from Kabul, then from Jalalabad.
Since then, Dr. Scheuer informs us, the powers-that-be have chosen to
bankrupt the USA in ruinous and pointless wars that have only served to
vastly increase whatever animosity toward America existed pre-9/11. And
they have lied outrageously about just about everything – including the
real motivation of Muslim insurgents (not “terrorists”)…and the real
geostrategic/security crisis America faces.
Do the establishment’s outrageous lies and insane policies stem from
the Israel lobby’s death grip on American politics? Should we “dump Israel tomorrow”?
Does Saudi money contribute to the corruption? How will Michael Scheuer
react to my “Zionist coup d’état” interpretation of 9/11? Who is it who
REALLY hates our freedoms – and is destroying them? Tune in and find
out what happens when a CIA anti-al-Qaeda chief meets a “radical Muslim
conspiracy theorist” right here on Truth Jihad Radio!Michael Scheuer is an Adjunct Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University. He is the author of four books on terrorism-related issues and has drawn ever-more-hysterical attacks from the usual neocon suspects. Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Show is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content.
All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole
responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the
responsibility of NoLiesRadio.org. Any questions or concerns should be
directed to the content producer.

Nationalism, Not ‘Exceptionalism’ the Proper Course for America
by Michael Collins Piper

During the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney spoke of “American exceptionalism.”

The
rhetoric sounded patriotic. In reality, this is a modern-day propaganda
mask for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and
internationalism. Though wrapped in the American flag, there’s nothing
American about it.

Rather than standing for American nationalism,
this philosophy—quite the contrary—is a 21st century manifestation of
the age-old dream of a global government under the rule of an elite few.
Many call it the New World Order.

While some still fear the UN as
the mechanism advancing the agenda, the fact is that the would be rulers
of this global plantation now seek to utilize the U.S. as their vehicle
for achieving that end.

The grand wizards who conjured up American
exceptionalism are those infamous “neo-conservative” high priests of war
who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and who now seek to contrive a
war against Iran. They crave U.S. military meddling all over the
world—not just in the Middle East.

Perhaps the foremost intellectual
proponent of this warmongering madness is Yale professor David
Gelernter. Defining “Americanism” as an incarnation of biblical Zionism
with “a divine mission to all mankind,” he says the United States is the
base of “American Zionism,” charged with a God-given duty to remake the
world.

“Americanism,” he asserts, is the “creed” of what is the
“fourth great Western religion,” the driving force behind—and which must
establish—a new planetary regime.

“We are the one and only biggest
boy [in the world today],” he wrote. “If there is to be justice in the
world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the
suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed.”

Real
American nationalists reject the idea the United States should be the
world’s policeman. Instead, nationalists believe in developing and
strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its
cultural heritage and sovereign borders, placing their own nation’s
interests first. Nationalists do not start wars of imperialism. They respect the nationalist instincts of others.

(Just another Neocon ideologue trying to sell the lie of American Exceptionalism to justify more wars for lsrael!)

'CREATIVE DESTRUCTION' OF THE ARAB WORLD

(Excerpt from THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, by Michael Collins Piper)

Lest anyone chalk up these comments to "Arab paranoia,"
or "anti-Israel bigotry," note that one of Israel's most
consequential advocates in official Washington — veteran pro-Israel intelligence
community bureaucrat Michael Ledeen, a longtime close friend and associate
of Richard Perle — has put out a propaganda screed titled The War
Against the Terror Masters in which he writes of what he calls "creative
destruction."

Ledeen says that this"creative destruction" is
"entirely in keeping with American character and the American tradition" —
an assertion that will surprise many Americans. Ledeen says that Iraq, Syria,
Saudi Arabia and — for good measure — the non-Arabic Islamic Republic of
Iran — should all be targets of "creative destruction" by
U.S. military might.

"Creative destruction," writes Ledeen, is
"our middle name," — the term "our" referring to Americans, whether or not
they share his imperialist views. According to Ledeen:

"We tear down the old order every day, from business to
science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.

Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and
shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional
societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.

They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our
very existence — our existence, not our policies — threatens their legitimacy.
They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance
our historic mission."

While his rhetoric is stilted and ponderous, what Ledeen is
promoting is the idea that it is not U.S. support for Israel that
engenders Arab hatred for the United States. Instead, he claims, it is the
very existence of the United States — the "American way of life" —
that inflames Arab passions. (What utter lies! What nonsense!)

Yet, these words are the propaganda line of the Israeli
lobby which hopes to distract the attention of the American people away
from the causes of Arab hostility to the United States stemming from
unswerving U.S. support for Israel. Ledeen goes on to suggest that
anyone who stands in opposition to all-out war against the Arab world
needs to be removed from positions of authority. He writes:

The president has to rid himself of those officials who
failed to lead their agencies effectively, along with those who lack the
political will to wage war against the terror masters.

The top people in the intelligence community need to be
replaced, and those military leaders who tell the president that it can't be
done, or they just aren't ready, or we need to do something else first, should be
replaced as well, along with the people in the national security community who
insisted that we must solve the Arab-Israeli question before the war can resume and
the top people in agencies like the FAA, the INS, and so forth.'

In fact, aside from other political considerations,
President George W. Bush had good personal reason to do the bidding of the
hard-line hawks in promoting their imperial schemes on behalf of Israel.

In the Feb. 1992 edition of The Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs, former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) revealed that in
1991 former Israeli intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky had blown the
whistle on a plot by a right-wing faction within Israel's Mossad to kill
then-President George H. W. Bush who was perceived as a threat to Israel.(...)

WORLD-WIDE IMPERIAL INTERVENTIONNISM!

Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941

By Michael Collins Piper

Until
a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles
Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to
prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war
against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced
many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist”
colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.

One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly
harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim
Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”

Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep
the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of
Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever
mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its
most deceptive and calculating.

Even more
disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history
taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s
patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people
agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not
fight.

The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.

Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random
House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by
Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war:
Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World
War II, 1939-1941.*

The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds
Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains
why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the
price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our
era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”

Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book
patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a
lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of
the author’s amazing admissions:

• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its
Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.

• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and
collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class
East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai
B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed
to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British,
the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely
opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was
no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now
“regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”

•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally,
the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to
believe that their country had entered the war not because its own
national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked
by the scheming, duplicitous British.”

• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming
from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of
police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of
“homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi”
invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it
is history repeating itself.

Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national
security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American
soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any
serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the
American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”

• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need
for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that
Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to
turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead
on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a
nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.

——

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show
host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada
and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The
High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House,
The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant
and The Golem.The Book’s Publisher Says

Those Angry Days is the definitive account of the debate over American
intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of
personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately
determined the fate of the free world.

At the center of this controversy stood the two most famous men in
America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the
interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who as unofficial
leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists emerged as the
president’s most formidable adversary. Their contest of wills
personified the divisions within the country at large, and author Lynne
Olson makes masterly use of their dramatic personal stories to create a
poignant and riveting narrative.

While FDR, buffeted by political pressures on all sides, struggled to
marshal public support for aid to Winston Churchill’s Britain, Lindbergh
saw his heroic reputation besmirched by allegations that he was a Nazi.

Spanning the years 1939 to 1941, Those Angry Days vividly recreates the
rancorous internal squabbles that gripped the United States in the
period leading up to Pearl Harbor. After Germany vanquished most of
Europe, America found itself torn between its traditional isolationism
and the need to come to the aid of Britain, the only country still
battling Hitler. The conflict over intervention was, as FDR noted, “a
dirty fight,” rife with chicanery and intrigue, and Those Angry Days
recounts every bruising detail.

During the 2012 election campaign, you’ll probably be hearing a lot
about “American exceptionalism,” particularly from the Republican
presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has made the concept a
centerpiece of his campaign, and Gingrich’s wife—the current one, that
is—has produced a documentary on the topic. Mitt Romney’s campaign book
is entitled No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Sarah Palin’s book, America by Heart,
has a chapter entitled “America the Exceptional.” And former Sen. Rick
Santorum and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have also been heard touting
the topic.

But don’t be fooled by rhetoric that has a lot of
patriotic appeal. In fact, the concept of American exceptionalism— and a
related theme known as national greatness conservatism—are really
modern-day propaganda masks for old-fashioned Trotskyite communism:
rapacious imperialism and internationalism now wrapped in the American
flag, but no different from the age-old dream of a world imperium—a
global government.

Many call it the New World Order. The wizards
who conjured up these themes are three key figures in the so-called
neo-conservative movement:

• William Kristol, founding editor of The Weekly Standard, long published by Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch;

• David Brooks, a former Kristol underling at the Standard and now a columnist for The New York Times, and;

•
Marshall Wittmann, a Jewish Trotskyite-turned neo-conservative and
regular Standard contributor. Kristol and Brooks began their crusade for
national greatness conservatism with a Sept. 15, 1997 Wall Street Journal article that urged Americans to “reinvigorate the nationalism of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Teddy Roosevelt.”

And
during the 2000 presidential campaign, Wittmann chimed in with a
lengthy piece in the Standard promoting John McCain, hailing McCain as a
tribune of national greatness conservatism and as a modern-day Theodore
Roosevelt.

Although many remember the first President Roosevelt
as a symbol of American greatness, the ugly truth that the controlled
media ignores is that it was “TR” who—even before Woodrow Wilson —began
calling upon the American people to sacrifice their lives and treasure
in the cause of global conquest, ostensibly in the name of bringing
peace to the planet.

This is not nationalism. It is
internationalism, advancing the theme that the United States should act
as a world policeman promoting some undefined dream of democracy, which
has now become the rallying cry of the modern Zionist-Trotskyite
schemers.

So TR was an internationalist, and no true American
nationalist should look to TR as a model of American greatness. Yet,
TR’s spirit is said to underlie national greatness conservatism and
American exceptionalism. More recently, in the Nov. 12, 2010 issue of The New York Times,
the aforementioned Brooks—sounding the call for a new centrist movement
in American politics— claimed that a national greatness agenda would be
promoted by “the next big social movement.”

Brooks said this
national greatness agenda would reject the views of “orthodox liberals
and conservatives” and end “hyper-partisanship.” He added that “the
coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in
the existing two” and preserve American supremacy—that is, global
interventionism. And don’t think it was—as the media has suggested— just
a reckless misstep by Newt Gingrich when he criticized the Medicare
reform package of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) saying, “I don’t think
right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing
social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right
or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

The
truth is that Gingrich’s rhetoric—attacking both the right and the left
in the same breath—was deliberate. He was clearly portraying himself as
one of the centrist advocates of American exceptionalism, echoed by
other recent comments by Gingrich proudly recalling his many years as a
Rockefeller Republican.

Don’t be surprised—you heard it here
first—that if he fails to win the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich
will be part of a breakaway centrist third party movement which has been
conjured up at the highest levels of the establishment elite.

AFP—alone among the media—has been reporting on this phenomenon.

Another disciple of American exceptionalism, Yale Professor David Gelernter—another Weekly Standard figure—has promoted the idea that Americanism
is a modern-day incarnation of Biblical Zionism and that Americans have
“a divine mission to all mankind” and that “every human being
everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality and democracy.”

In a book grandly entitled Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion,
Gelernter expressed the contention that the United States (the base of
what he has called American Zionism) is now charged with an imperial,
even God-given, duty to remake the world, that Americanism is the creed
of this global agenda, that this “Fourth Great Western Religion” is the
driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planet- wide regime.
He wrote:

We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world
today]. If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. .
. .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We
must spread the creed. This is the New World Order.And this is the
underlying theme of national greatness conservatism and American
exceptionalism. But there is nothing American about it. So don’t be
fooled by what sounds like patriotic rhetoric from the Republicans. It
isn’t.

Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.

Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS . Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!

"Countries
in the Middle East will likely think about following the recent example
of the Egyptian government in moving closer to Russia at the
expense of their ties to the United States. Israel’s neighbors, in
addition to the Palestinians and Hizbullah, will make what they will of
an America no longer able to provide Israel with the kind of qualitative and quantitative military backing the Israelis and their enemies have come to take for granted. (...) But equally at issue here is the kind of robust presence the U.S. will maintain around the world, as well as the responses the military would be able to muster given any number of potential crises. (...) But we cannot help but be uneasy with a White House that seems to be signaling a weariness with America’s traditional role in the world and a wish to unburden itself of the responsibilities of leadership. "

U.S. should be the world’s policeman
When there is no effective alternative,
democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten
to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use
it.

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., September 21, 2013.Photo by AFP

The United States should not be the world's policeman, or so U.S. President Barack Obama
argued in his address to the nation on September 10, in which he
explained his position on military intervention in the Syrian civil war.
The president is wrong. In light of the history and doctrine of the use
of force and military intervention, the United States, along with other
enlightened democracies in possession of military might, should and
must be the world's policeman.
The
horrors of World War II taught us certain lessons. One led to the
formation of the United Nations, for the purpose of preserving world
peace and creating a mechanism for dialogue among states. Another
resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which eventually
gave rise to binding international treaties meant to protect human
rights. But some questions remain: Do the lofty goals that inspired the
establishment of the United Nations mean that the international
community has aduty to intervene and raise the alarm
in the event of the commission of war crimes or the use of weapons of
mass destruction? (...)
It is legitimate to question whether intervention might lead to
international escalation. Nevertheless, isolationism in cases where
intervention is a moral necessity is supposed to be a thing of the past,
of a
time when states did not want to get bogged down in distant countries
even in the event of war crimes. If this attitude becomes prevalent once
again, it will be to the detriment of the entire world. It goes without
saying that diplomacy, itself a form of intervention, is preferable as
long as it is effective and not a kind of Munich Pact, as U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry noted in reference to Syria.
At
the end of the day, America, together with other strong democratic
countries, is indeed supposed to be the world's policeman - insofar as
it is acting on behalf of the fundamental principles on which the United
Nations was founded, even when political exigencies preclude obtaining
UN approval. When there is no effective alternative or pressure must be
exerted to kick-start diplomacy, democratic countries have an ethical
and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is
no other option, to actually use it. Proportionally, of course, but
also effectively, in compliance with the two leading criteria of
military law.

(...)
Obama's
address included more than faint echoes of another principled Democrat
intent on transforming American society and the world beyond it: Woodrow
Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, and the man who led
his country into the First World War.
(...)
However,
in A. Scott Berg's biography, "Wilson" (Putnam Press), the book's
namesake emerges as a formidable statesman, one who has influenced the
decision-making of every American president since his tenure.
Berg,
the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Charles Lindbergh and
Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn, sat down with Haaretz to discuss
Wilson's legacy and its effect on modern politics and the Obama
administration's policies – and why Wilson is what he calls the most
pro-Jewish president in American history.
Why is the Wilson presidency so relevant to the Obama presidency?
"Wilson
is the father of America's modern foreign policy. For 125 years, the
U.S. was an introverted nation that clung on to its isolationism. Wilson
posed the question: What is America's role in the world? And the answer
he gave, in his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, asking the
legislature to declare war on Germany, was that it is America's duty to
ensure "the world must be safe for democracy." This credo has been
espoused, for good and bad, by every president since Wilson, most
recently by Barack Obama.
"Wilson
was the most idealistic of America's presidents. He spoke often and
eloquently about America's moral obligation. He wed idealism with
interventionism. He urged his countrymen to fight preemptively for
principles, instead of retaliating for attacks against them. And he
obliged the U.S. to assist all peoples in pursuit of freedom and
self-determination. Obama has fully embraced this moralism, most
recently, when he sought congressional approval to punish Syria for its
deadly use of chemical weapons. In fact, listening to his speech [on
Syria], I thought Obama's ideas and phraseology were ripped right out of
Wilson's playbook."
(...)In late 1917, the British Government asked President Wilson to support a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement.
"And
he did. Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration – 'the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' He did so
despite the advice of his most trusted confidante, Col. Edward House,
who acted as America's first national security adviser. You must
remember that, at the time, the U.S. was an extremely anti-Semitic
country,so expressing support for the Balfour Declaration was a very
courageous act.
"Wilson
was the most Christian president the U.S. has ever had. He was the son
and grandson of Presbyterian ministers; he prayed on his knees twice a
day and read the Bible every night. But he was also the most pro-Jewish
president the U.S. has ever had. He appointed the first Jew to the
Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, a fervent Zionist, who counseled Wilson
about the Balfour Declaration, and who would go on to champion an
individual's right to privacy and free speech. He brought the financier
Bernard Baruch into government, and he appointed Henry Morgenthau as the
ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
"Earlier,
as president of Princeton University, Wilson appointed the first Jew to
the faculty, and as governor of New Jersey, prior to becoming
president, he appointed the first Jew to the state's Supreme Court."VIDEO - WILSON ASKS CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR 1917